The Anderson Report

CHAPTER 24
DANGERS OF COERCION

In scientology auditing very detailed notes are made by the auditor of all that a preclear
divulges. A copy of the auditor's report in respect of each preclear is sent each week to Hubbard
at Saint Hill, where it is kept. The office copy remains at the HASI. In the course of, say, 200 hours'
auditing, a preclear's file may be handled by as many as ten persons at the HASI, all of whom have
the opportunity of reading and familiarizing themselves with the contents of the file. There is
thus no secrecy within the HASI, notwithstanding that the auditor is enjoined by the auditor's
code not to impart the personal secrets of his preclears. The knowledge that these intimate
files exist both at the HASI and in England is likely to be harmful to the mental health of the
preclear concerned. A great part of the contents of these files is confessional material disclosed
by the preclear at a time when the psychological mechanisms of repression are dulled or are not
operating and normal inhibitions are suspended. A preclear frequently makes disclosures in an
auditing session which he would not otherwise make except under great psychological stress or
other form of compulsion. While a preclear is in the thraldom of scientology and his mind is dulled
to reality, while he is a compliant victim willingly abasing himself, taking his courses and paying
his fees and continuing to aspire with customary fervour to the elusive goals of scientology, he may
not be troubled by the fact that the records of his intimate and frequently shameful secrets are
preserved. But should he, whether or not he is still "in scientology", show any disposition to
deviate or otherwise offend the HASI, he soon realizes the grave embarrassment of such records
and the great influence which the HASI has over him. The potentialities of the situation are
limitless, and the fears and anxieties of the non-conforming or sadly awakened preclear are
greatly disturbing and very likely to enforce upon him subjection to the HASI under threat or fear
of the threat that non-compliance might result in damaging disclosure of the contents of his file.
Even if the preclear is still prepared to assume that the HASI will not divulge the secrets in his file,
he is nevertheless in a condition of great subservience to the organization, because of the power
which it is in a position to exercise as a result of the confessions he has made. The Board heard
expert psychiatric opinion that the realization that confessional material disclosed in auditing and
kept in records which could not be recovered by the preclear would be enough in some cases
to induce potential and chronic anxiety and perhaps psychosomatic symptoms.

In fact, no evidence was presented to the Board to the effect that in Victoria any material
obtained during auditing has been used for the purposes of what is conventionally described as
"blackmail", that is, threatening to accuse any person of any infamous or other crime with intent
to extort or gain from any person any valuable thing. (See Crimes Act 1958, section 124.)

But that is only one side of the picture. The existence of the files at the HASI and at Saint
Hill creates a situation which tends to keep the preclear in permanent subjection to the HASI.
It is a very brave man who would defy the HASI in such circumstances. The fact that it knows
all his secrets, guilty or otherwise, confers on the HASI great power and authority over the preclear,
and constrains the preclear to comply with the requirements of the organization and enables it to
bring to heel even the most recalcitrant.

The evidence revealed a number of cases in which the fear of the HASI forced upon preclears
a course of conduct in which they were not willing parties. One witness wrote to the secretary
to the Board, offering to give evidence along lines which he admitted in the witness box would not
have been true. He had written the letter because the HASI had desired him to do so. Eventually
he broke with the HASI, and bravely gave evidence hostile to scientology which exposed him to very
rigorous cross-examination. The secretary received several letters from other scientologists
written in consequence of a direction or request by the HASI that they be written. One young
woman at the beginning of 1964 freed herself for a time from the shackles of the HASI. Early
in the Inquiry she gave evidence which was hostile to scientology. At a later stage when she was
recalled to give further evidence she contradicted much of what she had earlier said; in the
meantime she renewed her association with a number of scientologists, with two of whom she was
residing, and it became evident on the later occasion that she was not a free agent, that her will
had been overborne by her scientology associates and that she moved in fear of the HASI and the
consequences of being "outside" scientology.

Scientologists are kept in line by the HASI; any deviationist is summoned to the HASI
for processing, and if he is the holder of certificates these may be cancelled or suspended, and only
revalidated when the offender has sufficiently abased himself and has undergone a long period
of processing at his own expense. The Board heard of several instances of scientologists having
to humble themselves in order to be readmitted to the good graces of the HASI. All staff
members, from Williams down, are regularly audited to ensure their continued conformity with
scientology. Any scientologist whose loyalty is in any way doubted may be required to undergo
a "security check."

A particularly effective means for keeping preclears in subjection to the HASI is the letter-writing
technique. This technique involves the frequent writing of brief letters to any preclear who
seems to be withdrawing from scientology. The letters are written by various members of the staff
at intervals of two or three weeks and are of a friendly nature, but keep referring to the preclear's
association with the HASI and to the preclear's problems and need of scientology. The effect
on the preclear of this sustained barrage of letters is generally to bring him into the HASI once more.
Examples of such letters are in Chapter 15. The continuous flow of letters serves to keep alive the
preclear's fear of and subjection to the organization.

A very disturbing feature of the existence of the HASI records is that there is no guarantee
that the HASI will continue to respect the confidence which preclears have reposed in the
organization. It may be that the present HASI staff at Melbourne, and even Hubbard's subordinates
at Saint Hill, will honour the trust which preclears have placed in them; but future personnel
may not be as trustworthy. Indeed, even at this stage, Hubbard himself is not to be trusted to
preserve confidences. If it suits his purpose, he is prepared to make known secret communications
sent to him in the belief and with the intention that their contents were not to be disclosed. during
the course of the Inquiry the Board heard evidence of a breach of such confidence, in the case of
one preclear who went to extraordinary lengths to get back into the favour of Hubbard. It so
happened that when Hubbard visited Victoria in 1959 this preclear, a most ardent scientologist
at that time but a man who dared to think and to question, was out of favour with Hubbard. This
preclear had been in scientology for about three years and had found in repeated processing much
the same solace and escape as a drug addict finds in his drug. Because he had offended Hubbard,
he was excommunicated and denied further processing. He felt he was desperately in need of
processing, and, believing that if he abased himself sufficiently he would ingratiate himself with
Hubbard and so be pardoned, he wrote to Hubbard pleading for permission to be audited. In his
letter he made an abject confession of a long list of wrongful acts which he said he had committed,
ranging from the stealing of five shillings from the mantelpiece when he was six years old to very
disgusting and depraved behaviour in later life, some of which may well have been untrue. The
confession was produced at the Inquiry and was used in an attempt to discredit this witness. It is
apparent that it was written to Hubbard in the greatest confidence and for his eyes alone, but it was
argued that the confession was not a disclosure made by a preclear during auditing, and therefore
the "code" had not been breached. From a legal point of view, it may well have been available
as a means of testing the credit of the witness, but the publication of the contents of this
document, manifestly intended to be of the most secret nature, illustrates Hubbard's irresponsibility
and unreliability. One psychiatrist said in evidence that this preclear had done everything he
could to regain favour with the organization, never expecting that his confession would be made
public, and that psychiatrically its disclosure "was a dreadful and cruel thing to do".

The use which Hubbard sought to make of this confession is in line with his general attitude
towards those who offend him. It is quite clear from correspondence between Hubbard and his
Melbourne HCO that Hubbard was quite prepared to privately "blackmail" scientologists who
offended him. In a letter dated the 24th May, 1960, Hubbard wrote to Mrs. Williams, the secretary
of the Melbourne HCO, in these terms:

"Dear Eliz - re [name omitted]: Horner blew up in our faces and has had his certs. cancelled.
We have criminal background on him. Rape of a girl pc in Dallas and countless others. This will
do something to [name omitted]. Now, I firmly believe you will be able to find a criminal
background this life on [names of two Melbourne scientologists deleted], as no such occurrence
anywhere in the world has failed to find one. I'd grab him when he comes in and security check
it into view. Run one on [two names omitted]. If they won't co-operate you have 'suspected
criminal activities.' It's a thrupenny push now. Horner, Nina West, Sylvan Stein in U.S.,
[two names omitted], Kemp, possibly Wing and Smokey Angell, Nibs - all tie into a neat network.
We're pulling it apart. Stein ran away. Tooley, by the way is in N.Z. with Stevens. Best Ron."

The person who was the subject of the letter was at this stage out of step with the HASI
and he was informed by letter signed by Mrs. Williams, on behalf of Hubbard, that "all your
certificates, rights, memberships. franchise in Scientology and in dianetics are suspended
forthwith.... Should you make arrangements, and receive 500 hours of HGC processing at
professional rates further attention may be given to your circumstances." Professional rates
at that time were about 1 guinea and a half per hour.

It is now said that accusations against Horner, of "criminal background" and of "rape of a
girl pc in Dallas and countless others", were unfounded. Subsequently Hubbard and Horner settled
their differences and Horner returned to the fold. He is the author of Summary of Scientology
and when last heard of was a leading overseas scientologist who probably would be extremely
surprised to know of his "criminal background" so irresponsibly publicized by Hubbard in May,
1960. There was no justification for the accusations which Hubbard directed should be made
against the two persons whose names were omitted above; Hubbard was merely irresponsibly
asserting, as was his practice, that anyone who was out of line with scientology had a criminal
or communist or homosexual background.

In the circumstances it is quite understandable that few former scientologists came forward
volunteering evidence hostile to scientology. Those who had such thoughts would promptly have
put them aside, quite evidently fearing that should they raise their voices in opposition to scientology
they would be at the mercy of an organization which was in a position to wreak vengeance by
revealing their secrets. There was, however, a small group of former scientologists who came
forward as witnesses and were prepared to take the risk of giving evidence hostile to scientology.
The Board is grateful to these witnesses who, though subjected to rigorous and embarrassing cross
examination, gave evidence which, on a number of matters, was of material assistance to the Board.

Security Checks.

One means whereby the HASI sought to ensure that staff and students alike did not deviate
from or have mental reservations concerning scientology theories was by the use of what were called
"security checks". The "security" in contemplation in these checks was the security of the
HASI. Williams said there were two kinds of security checks; one kind was "generalized",
of which there were about a dozen different forms, and the other was "particularized", "for some
particular mores, group or profession." It was said that from about the beginning of 1962 security
checks had ceased for the most part for processing purposes and that thereafter they had been used
only for security purposes.

These security checks probed deeply into the minds of preclears and, when used in conjunction
with the E-meter, were very effective in establishing HASI domination over both students and staff
members.

"The Only Valid Security Check", prescribed by HCO Pol. Lr. of the 22nd May, 1961,
contained 150 questions, of which the following are examples:

Have you given your right name?

Are you here for a different purpose than you say?

Have you ever stolen anything; forged a signature, cheque or document; blackmailed
anybody; been blackmailed; cheated; smuggled anything; entered a country illegally,
been in prison; tried to act normal; indulged in drunkenness; done any reckless driving;
hit and run with a car, burgled any place, embezzled money?

Are you guilty of anything?

Do you have a secret you are afraid I'll find out?

Have you ever assaulted anyone, practised cannibalism, been in gaol?

Have you ever been a drug addict, made anyone into a drug addict, peddled dope?

Have you ever raped anyone or been raped, been involved in an abortion, committed
adultery, bigamy, practised homosexuality, had intercourse with a member of your family,
been sexually unfaithful, practised sex with animals, practised sodomy, slept with a member
of a race of another colour, committed culpable homicide, committed a justifiable crime,
bombed anything, murdered anyone, hidden a body, attempted suicide, caused a suicide,
kidnapped anyone, aided an informer, betrayed anyone for money, threatened anyone
with a firearm?

Are my questions embarrassing?

Have you ever plotted to destroy a member of your family, had a member of your
family in an insane asylum, ever been pronounced insane, looted any place, conspired
with anyone, practised fraud, ever had anything to do with Communism or been a
Communist, been a newspaper reporter ?

Are you hiding anything?

Have you ever used hypnotism to procure sex or money, ill-treated children, practised
sex with children or practised masturbation, taken money for giving anyone sexual
intercourse, sexually coerced a servant?

Do you have any bastards?

Are you withholding anything?

Have you ever had any connexion with a brothel, coerced anyone into giving
you sex, had anything to do with a baby farm, killed or crippled animals for pleasure,
been a spy for the police?

Are you afraid of the police?

Have you ever committed a misdemeanour, a felony, a capital offence?

Have you ever done anything you are afraid the police might find out, falsified the
books in any firm you worked for, criminally avoided taxes, counterfeited money?

Have you ever done anything your mother would be ashamed to find out?

How could you help mankind?

Have you ever controlled people?

What is Communism?

Do you feel Communism has some good points?

Have you ever injured Dianetics or Scientology, committed an overt on a scientology
organization?

Do you have any overts on L. Ron. Hubbard, Mary Sue Hubbard?

Have you ever had any unkind thoughts about L. Ron Hubbard or scientology?

Do you know of any secret plans against scientology?

Do you plan to steal a scientology organization?

Do you deserve to be helped by scientology?

Are you upset about this security check?

What question in this check shouldn't I ask you again?

What unkind thoughts have you had while doing this check?

Subsequently, in HCO Pol. Lr. of the 29th June, 1961, a specific security check for scientology
students was devised. It contained over 100 questions, of which the following are examples: -

Are you coming on this course in order to get away from someone, or something?

Are you here to get into something, to find out whether scientology works, to prove
that scientology can't help you?

Are you coming on this course with the intention of killing off your body, with the
intention of spinning, or going insane?

Are you presently taking tranquilizers, drugs, or medication of any sort?

Have you had sex with any other student, a staff member?

Are you trying to get another student (staff member) to have sex with you?

Have you coughed, or distracted others, during a lecture?

Have you criticized this course, or the organization, verbally or in writing to
non-scientologists?

Have you secretly violated any course rule, or regulation; passed on restricted
data of scientology to unauthorized persons, tried to give scientology a bad name?

Are you making any scientologist guilty of anything?

Have you done anything that would discredit Ron or Mary Sue Hubbard, or your
instructors, by reason of their having trained you?

Is there anything that L. Ron Hubbard, or your instructors should mistrust you
for that you haven't told them about?

Are you in communication with someone who understands more about scientology
than L. Ron Hubbard ?

Is anyone hostile to scientology assisting you financially on this course?

Is anyone here counting on you to keep a secret for him?

Have you any feeling of "injured innocence" at having been asked these questions?

Have you been critical of the data or quality of tapes?

Have you ever written and then destroyed critical messages addressed to L. Ron
Hubbard?

How do you feel about these questions?

Staff Auditors and field auditors were subject to security checks as well, and HCO Pol. Lr.
of the 7th July, 1961, sets out the "HGC Auditor's Sec. Check". This security check contained
over 170 questions of which the following are examples: -

Have you ever permitted a preclear to take control of the session?

Have you ever startled a preclear when he was on a comm lag?

Have you ever permitted a preclear to have secrets from you?

Have you frequently run overtime?

Have you ever blamed the pc for running overtime?

Have you ever blamed the D. of P. or L. Ron Hubbard for your preclear's case
not advancing?

Have you ever failed to flatten a process when it was still biting?

Have you ever jammed a preclear into a one-way flow and left him stuck there
in it?

Have you ever audited badly?

Do you regard auditing as a punishment?

Do you feel that auditing is too good for psychotics, or cripples or criminals?

Have you ever been distressed because of a preclear's physical or mental pain under
auditing?

Have you ever stolen from a preclear?

Have you ever stolen another auditor's preclear?

Is there any question about the way you audit which you would hate to have the
D of P, or L. Ron Hubbard, ask you?

Is there any question the D. of P., or L. Ron Hubbard, should have asked you,
and hasn't?

Do you hope you won't be found out?

Have you ever avoided receiving auditing yourself?

Have you ever mistrusted your E-meter?

Is there anything mysterious to you about an E-meter?

Have you ever let a preclear control you?

Do you think selling auditing is really a swindle?

Do you think there is anything wrong with invading a preclear's privacy?

Do you feel there is anything wrong with having your own privacy invaded?